MLB 2025 Season

Monster Rain · March 2012

RW81233 wrote:

http://www.newser.com/story/115668/nikolai-bonds-on-barry-bonds-steroid-use-the-bigger-hat-was-mine.html
(I suppose this is a grain of salt)

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... ds_and.php
(a little bit more interesting)

I know other players have needed bigger hats as they've aged, but that's more to do with them gaining weight as they get older. Bonds' hat size got bigger despite the fact that he started shaving his head and was in good enough shape to hit 73 HRs.

Murphy also testified that the hat size of two other Giants greats, Willie Mays and Willie McCovey, had also changed, but after they had gained weight while in retirement.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... mpotence/1

Also note the threats of violence he made towards his girlfriend at the time, which she testified about in his trial and is mentioned in the article above. This is common among steroid users. Do you really think that it's not relevent to the discussion about whether they should be legal or not?

As for his son's claims, I don't buy it for a second. That article you linked to shows a picture of the 2 of them together from 2007 and his son's head is clearly not bigger than Barry's--and that picture was taken 5 years later than the time frame being discussed. His son was about 12 or 13 at the time Bonds needed a bigger hat. Also, I doubt that the team's equipment manager would confuse the hat of a player with that of a bat boy. They actually have to measure the players' heads to find out what size hat they need, so where is the confusion between a bald guy in his late-30s and a teenager.

Monster Rain · March 2012

Athletes are cared for better now than they were in the past--both during and after their careers. Players' unions have negotiated better pensions, health coverage, etc. and there are now stricter rules in place regarding concussions (sometimes in spite of the player's wishes). Equipment has been improved to protect players better (compare an NFL player's pads today with the pads from decades ago), and rules have been changed to protect players in sports like football and hockey. If nothing else, the various professional sports leagues have a strong financial interest in keeping players healthy because of the ever-increasing national and international marketability of the biggest stars.

Steroids are deemed more unnatural because injuires suffered during a career might leave a player with a limp, arthritis, a bad back, etc. when they finish playing, but do any of those things cause a person to have fits of rage that make them aggressive an doften violent towards other people? No, they don't, but steroids do. Do any of those things cause someone to have a heart attack at 35? Nope, but steroids can. Yes, physical sports take a physical toll on an athlete's body but not to the extent that steroids do and those aches, pains, surgeries, etc. don't cause death in your 30s.

RW81233 wrote:

i thought the hat size thing was a mythology...guess i could be wrong. NFL players and ex-footballers in general live approximately 20-30 years less than the average male (usually dying between 45-55). Those that live longer often suffer with disfigured body parts, or useless limbs, and are essentially left to die (see: Dave Duerson, Fridge Perry, Jim McMahon, and many, many more). These things have developed outside of the dangers of steroids (however true or untrue the dangers are), and, thus brings me back to the question why are we singling out steroids? IF we have already demonstrated that we could give two shits about athletes after their playing days are complete, THEN why are steroids deemed more unnatural, or cheating, etc. than other equally illegal uses of drugs? It's quite simple, since there was already a cultural hatred of steroids stemming from the cold war, a war on steroids makes for great PR. Because if we actually cared about our athletes I'd suggest that just about 0 of them should be on the NBA court right at this moment, that we'd need 200 man rosters for the NFL, 100+ for MLB, and so on.

Wobbie · March 2012

Monster Rain wrote:

Also note the threats of violence he made towards his girlfriend at the time, which she testified about in his trial and is mentioned in the article above. This is common among steroid users. Do you really think that it's not relevent to the discussion about whether they should be legal or not?

bonds was an asshole before he took steroids, while he took steroids and, probably, after he quit steroids. It's not all that relevant. hell, a lot of people turn into assholes when they drink alcohol. besides, kimberly bell is not exactly an unimpeachable witness.

Monster Rain · March 2012

imalive wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Also note the threats of violence he made towards his girlfriend at the time, which she testified about in his trial and is mentioned in the article above. This is common among steroid users. Do you really think that it's not relevent to the discussion about whether they should be legal or not?

bonds was an asshole before he took steroids, while he took steroids and, probably, after he quit steroids. It's not all that relevant. hell, a lot of people turn into assholes when they drink alcohol. besides, kimberly bell is not exactly an unimpeachable witness.

And the Benoit case? What about the people Cliffy witnessed? And what about the fact that Bonds didn't treat her that way before taking steroids? You might think she's lying in order to sell books, but the DA that traced steroid shipments to Benoit isn't selling anything and neither is Cliffy. Roid Rage is not something people are making up. Bonds' reputation for being an ass doesn't negate every other instance of Roid Rage seen in other people.

I wish Bonds was clean. I was a fan of his despite his personality because I know sometimes the media can twist a player not liking the press and spin it as "_______ is a jerk." The guy was great when he was clean. I just wish he'd stayed that way because he was headed for the Hall. It's a shame.

RW81233 · March 2012

Monster Rain wrote:

Athletes are cared for better now than they were in the past--both during and after their careers. Players' unions have negotiated better pensions, health coverage, etc. and there are now stricter rules in place regarding concussions (sometimes in spite of the player's wishes). Equipment has been improved to protect players better (compare an NFL player's pads today with the pads from decades ago), and rules have been changed to protect players in sports like football and hockey. If nothing else, the various professional sports leagues have a strong financial interest in keeping players healthy because of the ever-increasing national and international marketability of the biggest stars.

Steroids are deemed more unnatural because injuires suffered during a career might leave a player with a limp, arthritis, a bad back, etc. when they finish playing, but do any of those things cause a person to have fits of rage that make them aggressive an doften violent towards other people? No, they don't, but steroids do. Do any of those things cause someone to have a heart attack at 35? Nope, but steroids can. Yes, physical sports take a physical toll on an athlete's body but not to the extent that steroids do and those aches, pains, surgeries, etc. don't cause death in your 30s.

RW81233 wrote:

i thought the hat size thing was a mythology...guess i could be wrong. NFL players and ex-footballers in general live approximately 20-30 years less than the average male (usually dying between 45-55). Those that live longer often suffer with disfigured body parts, or useless limbs, and are essentially left to die (see: Dave Duerson, Fridge Perry, Jim McMahon, and many, many more). These things have developed outside of the dangers of steroids (however true or untrue the dangers are), and, thus brings me back to the question why are we singling out steroids? IF we have already demonstrated that we could give two shits about athletes after their playing days are complete, THEN why are steroids deemed more unnatural, or cheating, etc. than other equally illegal uses of drugs? It's quite simple, since there was already a cultural hatred of steroids stemming from the cold war, a war on steroids makes for great PR. Because if we actually cared about our athletes I'd suggest that just about 0 of them should be on the NBA court right at this moment, that we'd need 200 man rosters for the NFL, 100+ for MLB, and so on.

that's so questionable on so many fronts. i mean look at all the athletes in their late 20s and 30s suing the NFL for post-concussion effects, that shit jacks you up. Look at Chris Henry who presumably wasn't on steroids but had something like 80 concussions in his brain that led him to being crazy and dying too young. what peer reviewed research on steroids do you have that says the things you are claiming? you may have a correllation there but what research evidence do you have to back it up outside of something bob ley, buster olney, or howard bryant has told us? additionally, you are admitting your contradiction right there. you are fine with debilitating aches and pains and diminishing quality of life if it's done within what you think is "fair", but not fine with it if you think it is "unfair". how do you make sense of this? additionally if you are right about steroids couldn't one argue that killing people quicker when they have fame and money is far more humane than letting them get dementia and hobble around drunk and penniless for 10 more years? at what point do you just admit that you just want to be entertained by these guys and you don't care how it's done? how many athletes do you think "i wonder what their personal life is like" during and after their careers (maybe a few of your favorites or some outstanding crazies), but, even then, it's just a blip and you forget? do you work for a charity to help past athletes get back on their feet? do you personally treat them? if not why pretend to care?

The Juggler · March 2012

you have got to be kidding me:

For the 2012 Postseason only, the five-game Division Series will begin with two home games for lower seeds, followed by up to three home games for higher seeds. This one-year change will eliminate a travel day prior to a decisive Game Five of the Division Series and was necessary because the 2012 regular season schedule was announced before the agreement on the new Postseason was reached. Next year, the Division Series will return to the 2-2-1 format used in previous years.

:roll:

RW81233 · March 2012

WTF that's just stupid...so the Phils would have had to go to StL. for 2 to face Jaime G. who is only good at home before returning home last year...ughhh.

Wobbie · March 2012

The Juggler wrote:

you have got to be kidding me:

For the 2012 Postseason only, the five-game Division Series will begin with two home games for lower seeds, followed by up to three home games for higher seeds. This one-year change will eliminate a travel day prior to a decisive Game Five of the Division Series and was necessary because the 2012 regular season schedule was announced before the agreement on the new Postseason was reached. Next year, the Division Series will return to the 2-2-1 format used in previous years.

:roll:

happened to the giants in 1997 when they lost 0-3 to the marlins. don't know when it changed after that. I remember thinking it was pretty jacked up at the time. I drove up for Game 3.....man, did I get drunk at that game.

Wobbie · March 2012

Monster Rain wrote:

And the Benoit case?

he's a WWF wrestler, right? steroid use in MLB doesn't correlate to that shit. those guys are built like professional body builders.

I've got a ton of respect for your opinion, monster rain, but I'm done (at least for now

).

Monster Rain · March 2012

There are rules in place that dictate how teams handle players suffering from concussions and how soon the player is allowed back on the field. That right there is a step in the right direction. There are rules in the NFL and NHL that cover hitting a defenseless opponent, what types of hits are illegal (helmet-to-helmet hits, late hits, etc.), and better equipment (improved helmets, for example). All of that is in place to protect players. Also, if athletes take steroids to get stronger and faster, then they are putting their opponents at a greater risk of injury by taking them because a stronger guy running faster will hit his opponent with a greater impact. That's basic physics. Harder hits increase the chances of injuries, so allowing steroids is allowing more injuries than would otherwise occur. Even if you don't think the changes to rules in sports are really protecting players, that doens't mean it's ok to increase the risk of injury by allowing steroids.

As for Roid Rage and other side effects, I'm not sure what you doubt. It exists. There are posters in this thread who have specifically mentioned witnessing the rage themselves. Even if you truly believe that the government is lying about steroids simply because Germany and China won some medals, what reason do you have for not believing people who have witnessed the effects in people they know?

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/feat ... nd-answers
http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/anabstere ... ereff.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187978,00.html

Sorry, I don't work for a charity to help millionaires deal with retirement. I need a job that pays so I can continue having a home. That doesn't mean I want them ruining their livers, growing breasts, damaging their hearts, or having fits of unprovoked rage. I also don't want them injuring other players or making kids think the best way to make millions of dollars playing sports is by taking dangerous drugs and I certainly don't want to see them die young just because they might have some pain later.

RW81233 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Athletes are cared for better now than they were in the past--both during and after their careers. Players' unions have negotiated better pensions, health coverage, etc. and there are now stricter rules in place regarding concussions (sometimes in spite of the player's wishes). Equipment has been improved to protect players better (compare an NFL player's pads today with the pads from decades ago), and rules have been changed to protect players in sports like football and hockey. If nothing else, the various professional sports leagues have a strong financial interest in keeping players healthy because of the ever-increasing national and international marketability of the biggest stars.

Steroids are deemed more unnatural because injuires suffered during a career might leave a player with a limp, arthritis, a bad back, etc. when they finish playing, but do any of those things cause a person to have fits of rage that make them aggressive an doften violent towards other people? No, they don't, but steroids do. Do any of those things cause someone to have a heart attack at 35? Nope, but steroids can. Yes, physical sports take a physical toll on an athlete's body but not to the extent that steroids do and those aches, pains, surgeries, etc. don't cause death in your 30s.

RW81233 wrote:

i thought the hat size thing was a mythology...guess i could be wrong. NFL players and ex-footballers in general live approximately 20-30 years less than the average male (usually dying between 45-55). Those that live longer often suffer with disfigured body parts, or useless limbs, and are essentially left to die (see: Dave Duerson, Fridge Perry, Jim McMahon, and many, many more). These things have developed outside of the dangers of steroids (however true or untrue the dangers are), and, thus brings me back to the question why are we singling out steroids? IF we have already demonstrated that we could give two shits about athletes after their playing days are complete, THEN why are steroids deemed more unnatural, or cheating, etc. than other equally illegal uses of drugs? It's quite simple, since there was already a cultural hatred of steroids stemming from the cold war, a war on steroids makes for great PR. Because if we actually cared about our athletes I'd suggest that just about 0 of them should be on the NBA court right at this moment, that we'd need 200 man rosters for the NFL, 100+ for MLB, and so on.

that's so questionable on so many fronts. i mean look at all the athletes in their late 20s and 30s suing the NFL for post-concussion effects, that shit jacks you up. Look at Chris Henry who presumably wasn't on steroids but had something like 80 concussions in his brain that led him to being crazy and dying too young. what peer reviewed research on steroids do you have that says the things you are claiming? you may have a correllation there but what research evidence do you have to back it up outside of something bob ley, buster olney, or howard bryant has told us? additionally, you are admitting your contradiction right there. you are fine with debilitating aches and pains and diminishing quality of life if it's done within what you think is "fair", but not fine with it if you think it is "unfair". how do you make sense of this? additionally if you are right about steroids couldn't one argue that killing people quicker when they have fame and money is far more humane than letting them get dementia and hobble around drunk and penniless for 10 more years? at what point do you just admit that you just want to be entertained by these guys and you don't care how it's done? how many athletes do you think "i wonder what their personal life is like" during and after their careers (maybe a few of your favorites or some outstanding crazies), but, even then, it's just a blip and you forget? do you work for a charity to help past athletes get back on their feet? do you personally treat them? if not why pretend to care?

RW81233 · March 2012

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/76386 ... m-nfl-says

Ladies and Gentleman Your 2009 Super Bowl Champs putting bounties out for big hits. The commish is PISSED b/c his PR campaign about player safety has been exposed. And no one cares...

Jearlpam0925 · March 2012

A fan of the change. Not a fan of rushing it for this year so the LDS format goes 2-3 for 2012.

I hope at some point the LDS goes to 7 game and we'll be perfect.

eeriepadave · March 2012

Jearlpam0925 wrote:

A fan of the change. Not a fan of rushing it for this year so the LDS format goes 2-3 for 2012.

I hope at some point the LDS goes to 7 game and we'll be perfect.

yeah i'm on the fence with this move. I understand why they did it, but think it could have waited.

Monster Rain · March 2012

Jearlpam0925 wrote:

A fan of the change. Not a fan of rushing it for this year so the LDS format goes 2-3 for 2012.

I hope at some point the LDS goes to 7 game and we'll be perfect.

They only rushed it because Selig told them he had to have it this year despite the regular season and postseason schedules having already been set. He's said as much in a few interviews over the last 2-3 months. What's stupid about rushing it is the fact that they couldn't have it this year without going to the old 2-3 format instead of the 2-2-1 format they've been using. The whole reason they changed to the 2-2-1 format was because they realized that the 2-3 format gave the lower seeded team an advantage by giving them 2 home games to start the series, meaning they could conceivably go into the higher-seeded team's stadium up 2-0. So now they've added an extra Wild Card team in an effort to make winning the division seem more important and awkwardly rushed it for this season by changing the LDS format to one that may actually favor the Wild Card team. But at least the league will have that extra game to get a little more money. Brilliant.

The Juggler · March 2012

Monster Rain wrote:

Jearlpam0925 wrote:

A fan of the change. Not a fan of rushing it for this year so the LDS format goes 2-3 for 2012.

I hope at some point the LDS goes to 7 game and we'll be perfect.

They only rushed it because Selig told them he had to have it this year despite the regular season and postseason schedules having already been set. He's said as much in a few interviews over the last 2-3 months. What's stupid about rushing it is the fact that they couldn't have it this year without going to the old 2-3 format instead of the 2-2-1 format they've been using. The whole reason they changed to the 2-2-1 format was because they realized that the 2-3 format gave the lower seeded team an advantage by giving them 2 home games to start the series, meaning they could conceivably go into the higher-seeded team's stadium up 2-0. So now they've added an extra Wild Card team in an effort to make winning the division seem more important and awkwardly rushed it for this season by changing the LDS format to one that may actually favor the Wild Card team. But at least the league will have that extra game to get a little more money. Brilliant.

bud selig is a fucking moron. i know some people defend him here. but rushing this new format at the expense of home field advantage for the team that actually wins their division is absolutely ridiculous. he's accomplished the exact opposite of what he set out to do. doesn't matter that it's only for one year either. some teams/cities only get lucky once every century it seems. now they could get screwed over by this traveling mistake.

what's next? making something as trivial as an all star game decide homefield advantage in the world series?

....wait. now wait just a minute here...

Cliffy6745 · March 2012

Why is this in bud selig? Everyone involved agreed with the format, the players union, the commissioners office and the teams

The Juggler · March 2012

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Why is this in bud selig? Everyone involved agreed with the format, the players union, the commissioners office and the teams

then mlb in general then. whatever. he's the commissioner of a league that just made a bogus/rushed decision. buck stops somewhere dude.

The Juggler · March 2012

between the weird thing in the outfield and an actual fish tank behind home plate, this place is going to be... pretty weird looking to say the least :? :

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/ ... -ballpark/

Monster Rain · March 2012

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Why is this in bud selig? Everyone involved agreed with the format, the players union, the commissioners office and the teams

I blame Bud for it because he's the one who has been pulbicly saying things like this back in January:

Selig says that a committee formed to work out details of expanding the playoffs from eight teams to 10 is dealing with scheduling issues. Addition of a second wild card in each league would add a one-game play-in between teams with the two best records in each league that are not division winners. Selig says that would mean condensing the overall playoff schedule.

Selig says the committee knows he is an ardent supporter of the concept. Under the new collective bargaining agreement, MLB and the players' union must agree by March 1 whether to add the new round for 2012.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/b ... index.html

And this:

"We're working on dates right now. That'll all take place. It looks to me like we'll have it because I've told everybody we have to have it. It'll be exciting. One-game playoff, it will start the playoffs in a very exciting manner."

The man's a walking contradiction. In one breath he says the clubs all want it this year and in the next he says that he told everbody it has to happen this year. He says he wants to make winning the division mean something and then pushes for a format this year that could give the #5 seed an advantage because they get the first 2 games at home rather than wait a year and let the idea prgress naturally. No matter how good the #1 seed is, if they're down 2-0 in a 5-game series they have the odds stacked against them. It's the whole reason why they stopped using that format after 3 seasons.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/b ... index.html

Monster Rain · March 2012

The Wilpons have to pay $83 million to the trustee in the Madoff case and will have to go to trial over the additional $303 million the trustee is seeking.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_ ... ecide-303m

MLB 2025 Season

Comments

Categories